I appreciate the dialogue on this subject. I also appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt in regards to the social media stuff. I don’t play those games. I contacted you out of respect for the passion and breadth of your testing. While we disagree on some points, that does not prohibit us from discussing those points. In regards to your points about Calcium Sulfonate, the effects you described in terms of it helping poor oils and hurting good oils makes sense. Every Additive has a sweet spot in which it works the best, and any treat rate above or below that “window” will cause a drop in performance. That is certainly the case, as you have well documented, with ZDDP – too much is a bad thing.
In regards to our race engine testing, we perform pre and post test measurements of critical wear parts – primarily cam lobes. This allows us to accurately and repeatedly measure wear on engine parts in the environment they operate in, and that provides us with a microns/hour rate rate for every oil we test.
I do understand your point of taking an oil to a “failure” point, which is why I thought it could be interesting to “overlay” each of our testing methods on common dexos 1 formulas to see what it revealed from a chemistry standpoint. With that said, I understand and respect your decision to decline collaborating on the dexos testing. By the way, I did not mention who I worked for simply because I contacted you of my own volition, so I did not want to confuse my own personal curiosity with anything to do with the company I work for.
Thanks again for the dialogue.
Respectfully,
Lake Speed, Jr.
.
.
===================================
.
.
I appreciate you wrapping things up in a pleasant manner. But, I do have some parting comments about all this.
You stated above, “While we disagree on some points, that does not prohibit us from discussing those points.” So, I have to make something perfectly clear, once and for all hopefully, even though I mentioned it previously. And that is, agreeing or disagreeing only applies to opinions and theories. But, the data I post on this Blog is NOT my opinion, and is NOT my theory. The information I post on this Blog, is the “SCIENTIFIC TEST DATA” that comes from the Physics and Chemistry involved in the testing I perform. No one, and I mean no one, can disagree with Science. Science is FACT, the REAL DEAL, no matter if anyone likes it or dislikes it. If for example, you don’t like gravity, it does NOT matter if you dislike it. Science does not care what you think. Because Science simply is what it is. It’s the same idea with my Scientific test data, it simply is what it is, like it or not. If you think you can disagree with Science, knock yourself out. Who do you think will win that?
You never said what specific oils you test, which was bothersome, because that does makes it a one-sided discussion. So, I can only “assume”, which is something I hate to do, that you are testing some of the same oils that I have tested, based on your comment that our data does not always match. Yet, you do not provide any specific data at all, as to the actual amount of wear over the number of hours of run time, nor as I said, which oil is being discussed. That is rather frustrating, because you said previously that you wanted to “share” data. But, you have not been honest about that, since you have shared nothing at all, while I have shared all my data with the whole world.
That is like having a debate between two candidates, with only one speaking. So, that would seem to confirm that I made the right decision to decline your request that I collaborate with you on dexos 1 testing. I would have done all the testing for you, while getting nothing in return from you. So, based on our dialogue, as you put it, my initial suspicion of you and/or your motives, even if being nasty was not the intent, appears to have been well founded.
I get the impression (since you won’t give me anything concrete to go on) that you largely test oils that did not perform well in my testing, yet you feel those oils do OK in your testing. But, if you are finding measureable wear per “hour”, then that would make the case that my testing is indeed accurate, regarding oils that did not perform very well. Poor performing oils that allow measureable wear in such a short amount of time, are causing a “slow failure”, you might say. Measureable wear in such a short time, is simply NOT acceptable, and indicates that you are using oils that do not provide sufficient wear protection. That situation describes poor performing oils that have a very low margin of safety, as Engineers say. With oils performing that poorly, you are lucky that you have not experienced outright total failures right away.
So, you may want to rethink your race engine oil testing. Because from what you have mentioned about the short term wear you have been experiencing, your testing is not serving you well. Therefore, it sounds to me, like your engines would do far better if you take my test data to heart, and make use of it to select much better performing oils. For hardcore flat tappet race engines, I would use an oil that can produce over 100,000 psi “film strength/load carrying capability/shear resistance” in my testing. Oils that perform that well, will provide sufficient wear protection, as well as provide a comfortable margin of safety.
You apparently have not read the examples of how my test data exactly matches real world experience. So, I’ll share a couple of them here:
MY OIL TEST DATA AND RACE TRACK EXPERIENCE ARE IDENTICAL
1.
An oval track dirt racer (his class is extremely competitive, so he asked that his name be left out) on the SpeedTalk Forum runs a 7200 rpm, solid flat tappet, 358ci Small Block Chevy motor, with valve spring pressures of about 160 on the seat and 400 open, that are shimmed to .060” from coil bind. The rules and the combination of parts, were causing him to experience repeated cam failures while using high zinc, semi-synthetic 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 motor oil. Lab Report Data from testing performed by Professional Lab, “ALS Tribology” in Sparks, Nevada, showed that this oil contains 1557 ppm zinc, 1651 ppm phosphorus, and 3 ppm moly. In spite of this being a high zinc oil, that most folks would “assume” provides excellent wear protection, he experienced wiped lobe cam failure about every 22 to 25 races.
A race consists of one 8 lap (a lap is typically 3/8 mile) heat race and one 20 lap feature race, plus any caution laps. If you add it all up, 25 races only total about 281 miles at the point of cam failure. So, that is a perfect example of what I’ve been saying all along about high zinc levels being absolutely NO GUARANTEE of adequate wear protection. And my test data on this 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 motor oil, shows that it produces a wear protection capability of only 71,206 psi, which puts it in the MODEST wear protection category, and it ranks a very disappointing 149th out of 198 oils tested so far. That means of course that there are 148 different oils I’ve tested that provide better wear protection.
So, my test data ACCURATELY PREDICTED EXACTLY what he experienced during racing. And that is, that this oil does not provide high enough wear protection capability to provide a sufficient margin of safety for this engine’s operating conditions. Looking at my “Wear Protection Ranking List” and choosing a much higher ranked oil, would have prevented all those cam failures. Repeatedly suffering cam failures in motors with so little time on them, may have been considered by some folks to be a normal consumption of parts back in the ‘60’s or ‘70’s. But, in the 21st Century that we live in now, by any measure, that is for sure premature failure. We no longer have to accept that as the cost of doing business, because we can do far better now.
So, he switched to the super micro polished billet lifters from PPPC and the cam life went up to 40 races, which was an improvement since he could now go 450 miles between failures. But, that was still clearly unacceptable. Then later on, he started using “Oil Extreme Concentrate” as an additive to the 10W30 Brad Penn, and he’s never lost a lobe on a cam since. Adding the “Oil Extreme Concentrate” completely eliminated his premature wiped lobe cam failures. At the time of this writing, the motor had gone 70+ Races without issue, and was still doing fine. This “Oil Extreme Concentrate” is one additive that actually works as advertised, and makes low ranked oils far better than they were to begin with. And that is PRECISELY WHAT MY MOTOR OIL TEST DATA PREDICTED as well.
Here’s how. I also added “Oil Extreme Concentrate” to 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 semi-synthetic, as part of my motor oil “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” research. And with 2.0 OZ of “Oil Extreme Concentrate” added per qt, which is the amount intended for racing, its wear protection capability shot up by a BREATH TAKING 56%, to an amazing 111,061psi, which puts it in the INCREDIBLE wear protection category, and now ranks it a jaw dropping 20th out of 198 oils tested so far. So, it moved up a whopping 129 ranking positions, just by adding the “Oil Extreme Concentrate”. This totally accounts for the reason all his cam lobe failures were eliminated.
2.
In addition to this, a NASCAR Race Team out of North Carolina (they did not want their name associated with any Internet motor oil arguments that may come up, so they asked that their name be left out, which I honored) was so impressed with the motor oil “Wear Protection Capability Testing” I perform, that they sent me 3 NASCAR Racing Oils they use, for testing. They valued my testing efforts enough to include me in what they do, which is quite an endorsement, considering the Professional level of Racing they are involved in.
The three oils they sent me were high zinc synthetic Mobil 1 Racing Oils, because they were having wear problems when using these oils, and wanted to see if I could shed any light on that by testing them. Lab Report Data from testing performed on these oils by Professional Lab, “ALS Tribology” in Sparks, Nevada, showed that on average, these oils contained 1774 ppm zinc, 1658 ppm phosphorus, and 1444 ppm moly. And because these were all high zinc oils, most folks would “assume” that they’d provide sufficient wear protection. However, the results of my testing showed that these oils only provided POOR WEAR PROTECTION CAPABILITY.
They were:
0W50 = 73,811 psi, which ranks 134th out of almost 200 oils tested so far.
0W30 = 71,923 psi, which ranks 146th
0W = 55,080 psi, which ranks 192nd
I wouldn’t even use these extremely poor oils in an ordinary daily driver. So, they were clearly NOT a good choice for their racing application, which confirmed why they had wear problems. With that information in hand, they selected other oils to use, and their wear problems went away. This is yet another perfect example of what I’ve been saying about high zinc levels being NO GUARENTEE of adequate wear protection. If I had tested those oils before they started using them, I could have saved them time, money and grief.
These are just a couple of examples PROVING once and for all, that my test data EXACTLY MATCHES REAL WORLD RACE TRACK EXPERIENCE, and that my test data is the spot on REAL DEAL. This completely confirms that my test results WILL ACCURATELY PREDICT what we can expect from motor oils in running engines on the track or on the street, EVEN if those oils are high zinc oils. So, that should be more than enough proof to satisfy anyone who was skeptical of how well my test data compares to the real world.
I am asking this because I have no idea what it entails? Have you considered making this a searchable page? Like just for diesel oils, or just oils for older vehicles?
.
.
======================================
.
.
Hi Derrel,
This Blog was fairly simple and not all that super long when it was first started. And the incredible interest from all over the world, has resulted in enormous growth since it was started a few years ago. So, it is simply too long to rebuild it now. And most people have no trouble reading the tech articles or working their way down the Wear Protection Ranking List to find what they are looking for.
I waded through some more of the blog. It seems pretty clear that diesel oils are not the best choice for gasoline rigs. However, so far it makes no mention if maybe gasoline oils may be better for light duty diesel cars & 3/4 to one ton diesel vehicles?
.
.
===============================
.
.
Derrel,
Check out my Tech Article “30. Five Lightweight Diesel Oils Tested and Compared”. I think many of your questions about oils that can be used in both gasoline and Diesel engines, will answered there with the “combination” oils that were tested.
Thank you for the original blog. It was a excellent read. I am currently running Quaker State Ultimate Durability 5w-20 (new green bottle). Have you compared this new formula/marketing technique to the yellow that proves such stong results? I am running this is a 2016 Mustang GT with a larger throttle body, cold air intake, engine tune (all by ford racing, parts from the Shelby gt350). Since making the change from motorcraft 5w-20 synthetic blend… thanks
For all who disagree with his test data on quaker state, you can read that they called out Mobil 1, Castrol, and Valvoline in a wear test which would be shown to the public. Not one company took them on their offer. Not surprising based off of the test data you presented.
Thanks for the heads up on that change, and for the link to the Quaker State Challenge. Quaker State’s confidence in that challenge, matches up with how well the gold bottle version performed in my own testing.
This green bottle oil is not new, it is just in a new bottle. Quaker State said:
We’re making our entire line of bottles green.
Why? Because we look better in green. Anyway, it’s what’s on the inside that counts – which is why we haven’t changed a drop, just the color of the bottle.
So what’s the deal with these new bottles?
We’re all about keeping it simple at Quaker State, so now all of our bottles are the same color—green. So things don’t get confusing, each bottles’ label and cap is unique to its corresponding motor oil.
Does Quaker State still offer full synthetic?
You betcha. To find Quaker State Ultimate Durability Full Synthetic motor oil, just look for the green bottle with a gold label and gold cap.
If Quaker State Ultimate Durability is in a green bottle, does that mean it’s the same as Quaker State Advanced Durability?
Nope! Quaker State Ultimate Durability will remain a full synthetic motor oil and Quaker State Advanced Durability will remain a conventional motor oil. They just wear semi-matching outfits.
To make sure you’re getting Quaker State Ultimate Durability Full Synthetic motor oil, check the bottle for a gold label and gold cap.
What happened to Quaker State Defy? My engine has 80,000 miles and I need high mileage motor oil.
Quaker State Defy High Mileage motor oil is now called Quaker State High Mileage motor oil. Rest assured, the product is the same, just a shorter name!
To find Quaker State High Mileage motor oil, look for the all green-bottle with the red label and red cap.
What’s different about the oil?
Absolutely nothing. We’ve updated the look of our packaging – not the formulation inside. It’s the same reliable oil, just in a new green bottle.
How does the Quaker State packaging change help me?
To streamline your shopping experience, Quaker State has added a product comparison chart to the back labels of the new multi-quart bottles to make it easy to select the right Quaker State motor oil for your vehicle.
The new aesthetics are pretty cool, but in addition to being green, the new Quaker State bottles feature an improved heavy duty cap, optimized ergonomics for easy pouring and handling, clear tiering across portfolio with color codes caps and labels, and prominent placement of viscosity grade to aid in navigation.
Hey, I’ve read you’re amazing blog I since now run Mobil 1 ESP formula 5w30 which is quite a great oil and I experience so lower temperatures which is AWESOME !
What’s the BESTway to properly warm up a car and its oil? let it idle for a while, wainting that the oil reach 158 deg farein or 176 or even 194 deg f? or driving it around right away, just couple seconds after starting it? Or something else?
I know that you’re saying that a good oil pressure’s rule of thumb is 10 psi per 1000 rpm but, is 3 psi (= 0.2 bar) or a bit less at idle (800 rpm) when hot (90 or 100 deg celsius or more which is approx 194 or 212 deg fahrenheit or more) is ok or too low of a pressure? Is it safe?
Of course there is not a lot of pressure but a good oil flow is still there right?
Anyway, tell me your thoughts.
Thanks again.
.
.
=================================
.
.
Hi Clement,
The best way to warm a car up is to simply start it up, and then without waiting, drive drive it easy until it reaches normal operating temperature, which is usually in the 10 to 15 minute time frame for most vehicles. Once it is up to normal operating temperature, you can run it hard without worrying about the motor oil. See my Tech Article, “23. Multi-viscosity motor oils are not exactly what some people think”, for all the details.
The old rule of thumb of “10 psi per 1000 rpm” is a general “recommendation” for racing engines. However, it is NOT an absolute requirement. And for street vehicles, as long as your engine is not WAY below that value, you should be fine. But, 3 psi or a bit less at 800 rpm hot idle, is less pressure than I would like to see, which also indicates lower flow through the engine than I would like.
If it were me, I would look into installing a high volume oil pump, if they are available for your engine. That would increase your hot idle oil pressure and oil flow. And the oil pump’s pressure relief valve will control the oil pressure’s limit at higher rpm. Doing this would be quicker, easier and cheaper than a total engine rebuild of a worn out engine, which could be the root cause of such low oil pressure. Worn out engines with loose clearances will result in low oil pressure.
Forgotten to mention : Should I then stick with 5w30 or should I keep lowering viscosity and trying a 5W20 like the quaker state?
Also, as far as pressures are concerned, they good when I’m not a hot idle, I have approx 1 bar every 1000 rpm which approx 14.5 psi every 1000 rpm.
So I’m just concerned about idle.
.
.
================================
.
.
In your particular case, and for any engine that was not designed for 5W20 in the first place, I would not recommend going to a viscosity that low. So for you, between those two viscosities, stay with the 5W30. See my comment above about oil pressure.
Hope things are going well for you. I have a couple of quick questions.
When looking at the oils in the list, if there is just a variation in the viscosity between one that you have tested and one that appears not to have been tested, can we assume safely that the not tested oil would perform closely to the tested oil? Yes, I know you dislike the “assume” word. You have 5W30 Valvoline Maxlife, synthetic blend at 108,045 psi. I prefer to use a 10W30 in this particular engine and there is a 10W30 Valvoline Maxlife available.
You mention occasionally that it is best to use recently tested oils to ensure that we are using ones that you have tested and that they are not a different formula. Would it be possible on future tests to simply add the Month/Year that the oil was tested?
And just an observation about the Royal Purple oil brand. On our 434 powered Monza – bracket car – my son wanted to try the RP stuff. We race on methanol fuel and what I found after 18 passes was that there was some type of reaction between that oil and we believe the methanol that caused it to “gel”. Our vacuum pump, vacuum lines, puke tank and valve covers were loaded with this purplish gel. We follow a set procedure of leaning the engine out at the end of the day to build heat and dissipate some of the moisture left by the methanol along with using a fogging oil down the carburetor to coat the internal surfaces in between races. Switching over to the Valvoline VR1 oils has not shown this gel issue.
.
.
===============================
.
.
Hi again Charles, it’s good to hear from you.
That question has come up a number of times before. And the answer of course remains the same. You cannot safely assume that an untested oil would perform similarly to a tested oil from the same line of oil, that only varies by viscosity. Because some oils do perform similarly and some oils do not.
It just depends on what the oil company decided to do regarding how much money they invest in individual products. It has often been that the best selling viscosity would get the best and most expensive additive package formula. Producing and marketing motor oil is only a business for Oil Companies. So, they typically do what returns the highest profits, like any other Company. So, if you don’t test it, you cannot know for sure.
I have already added the season and the year that I tested each oil, as I post new test data. And I will continue to do that from now on. But, there is no need to break it down to the particular month. That would add no meaningful data. Because it would be too specific to take into account how long a bottle of oil might have been sitting on an Auto Parts Store shelf.
Love this info, Thanks Again 540 RAT! Have you considered doing something similar for the ATF or gear oil families of oils? I do not wish to invoke never ending dreams of oils left to test?
.
.
====================================
.
.
Hi Derrel, I’m glad to hear that you appreciate my Engineering test data and related motor oil info.
The answer to your question is that very few car guys even care about ATF or gear oil, so testing them is not worth the effort. But, virtually all car guys care about motor oil, so I will continue to test only motor oil.
Hey 540 RAT,
Awesome page, I bought into the whole Royal purple is the best like many people did, after trying to find some real research on them compared to other oils I became suspicious. Then I stumbled upon your site which is a treasure trove of information. What do you recommend for manual transmission oil and what type of coolant.
Keep up the good work I tell everyone about this site!
Jay F
.
.
===============================
.
.
Hi Jay, thanks for the kind words. I’m glad to hear you like my Blog.
I don’t have any particular recommendations for those.
Thank you for all the time and expense you have put into the very detailed and honest work you do. Are you planning on testing the new CK-4 diesel oils any time soon? As I am sure you are aware there is a dark cloud over the use of these new oils in older diesel applications. It is very confusing to many when Ford says they do not recommend the use of ck4 oils in any of their diesels then they post a list of certain ck4 oils they will certify is ok to use. From what I have read the real concern with the use of ck4 oils in older diesels is that they have lowered the zinc and phosphorus levels to levels that will cause high. The confusing thing for me is that if zinc/phosphorus levels are the real concern then for instance the old rotella cj4 15w40 oils had 1088 ppm Phosphorus, 1190 zinc, and 40 Boron.
The new ck-4 Rotella 15w40 has 1080 phosphorus, 1203 zinc, and 207 boron. The old motorcraft cj4 had 1103 phosphorus, 1188 zinc, and no traceable boron. Looking at these numbers I took from the PQIA site show the new CK4 rotella having having higher zinc, very close numbers in phosphorus and much higher boron then the older cj4 rotella and motorcraft oils yet ford did not list the new rotella ck4 15w40 oil as a oil they recommend using.
I live on a farm and we have large tractors in excess of $150,000 that we are stumped on if we should be running these new oils in our equipment or not. When I contacted John Deere they said the new ck4 version is backward compatible and is fine to use in older equipment. When I contacted New Holland equipment they said it was ok to use the newer oil in the new tractors that have emissions controls in place but they do not recommend the use in their older equipment due to wear concerns. As you can see the whole ck4 oils thing is very shady and confusing on if we should be using it or not in OLDER EQUIPMENT.
Thank You again,
Dave Wilson
.
.
==================================
.
.
Hi Dave,
I didn’t have any particular plans to test CK-4 Diesel oils. The confusion about the required zinc level is the same as with old and new gasoline engine oils. The old idea that you have to have a certain zinc level to provide adequate wear protection, has been proven over and over again by my Engineering tests on motor oil, to be nothing but an old MYTH, that people have been brainwashed to believe over the past few decades.
If you’ve read much of my Blog, you know that my breakthrough testing on a wide variety of oils, shows that the old high zinc MYTH does not stand up when put to the test, and proves that the zinc level means absolutely nothing at all. Because some high zinc oils provide excellent wear protection, while other high zinc oils do not. So, just looking at the zinc level of any particular oil, is completely worthless.
But, people who are not familiar with my breakthrough Engineering tests, still believe the old MYTH because that is all they have ever been told. The people who still believe that MYTH include a lot of equipment manufacturers, engine builders, racers, farmers, etc, etc. The reason you get confusing information is that only a few people know the facts, while most do not. It sounds to me like John Deere knows the truth, while New Holland does not, though I have not tested any oils with their names on them.
You’ve come to the right place, because my Wear Protection Ranking List eliminates all the confusion. The FACT is, the only thing that matters when it comes to motor oil wear protection, is the psi value a motor oil can generate in my Engineering tests. The higher the psi value, the better the wear protection.
I have a fairly good cross-section of traditional Diesel oils on my ranking list for you to consider. If you do not find the specific oils on there that you absolutely need to know about, you could send me a couple of brand new unopened bottles of oils for testing if you’d like.
I may not be able to get to the testing right away, but I would try to fit it into my schedule as quick as I could. So, if you are not in a real panic for quick results, let me know, and I can provide shipping instructions.
Question: Does one need to shake oil bottles before pouring them? In other words, do the additives stay in suspension, or do they settle after a while on the shelf?
Best,
Jim
.
.
==============================
.
.
Hi Jim,
Yes, the additive package does settle, so you should always shake motor oil well before pouring it into your engine.
My boat engines, which are gasoline GM 5.7l units that are marinized by Indmar- EDM/Barr, are recommended by the marinizer to use 15W40 Pennzoil. This weight is typically used for diesels. I’ve used this oil for the past 8 years and have not had a problem.
These engines are run typically in the 2k-3k range (low RPM, high load, as there really is no “coasting” on a boat), though WOT with the props I have is about 4500 RPM.
Would you be able to provide any insight on why this oil is recommended by the marinizer?
Thanks again,
Jim
.
.
================================
.
.
Hi again,
No, I cannot speak for them. But, some people incorrectly believe that motor oils labeled as traditional Heavy Duty Diesel oils, are great oils. But, they are not, and traditional Heavy Duty Diesel oils should ideally not be used in gasoline engines.
Read through my Wear Protection Ranking List and you will see why Diesel oils are a poor choice for gasoline engines. They are ranked very low overall.
Also look at my Tech Article, “12. Diesel Oil – Is it the right choice for High Performance gasoline engines?”, for more details
You have probably been fine because of your low rpm usage. But, your engine would be much better protected if you use highly ranked gasoline engine oils.
I really appreciate what you are doing and this site was really helpful for me to understand more about oils. I have a question to you:
Could I send you a Honda 0w-20 Type 2.0 oil (only available in Europe, put in new type-r civics and new turbo Honda engines) so that you could do your analysis and put it in your list?
If so, how can I contact you so that you can give me your mailing address.
Thanks again!
.
.
=============================
.
.
Hi there, I will post the shipping instructions for 2 or 3 days, then remove them.
“The Shipping Instructions were removed later, per a following discussion”.
Another question is about oil choice for my 2017 Honda Civic 1.5 turbo. I live in Europe and instruction manual says the following about oil choice:
– Genuine Honda Motor Oil*1
– ACEA A3/B3
– ACEA A5/B5
*1: If you use 0W-20, you should use “Honda Engine Oil Type 2.0”.
Now, if I don’t want to use the Honda oil, I can use one that meets A3 or A5 standards. There are no A3 or A5 0w-20 oils so I presume the manual says, I can use whatever weight but it has to meet one of these standards?
Manual says further:
Use a Genuine Honda Motor oil or another commercial engine oil of suitable viscosity for the ambient temperature as shown.
0W-20 oil is formulated to improve fuel economy.
If “Honda Engine Oil Type 2.0” is not available, use 5W-30 or 0W-30.
540 Rat, my gf will be driving this car to work every day (lots of traffic and start stop driving, 8 miles one way). I on the other hand will be practicing spirited driving, redline, acceleration etc. Also, once a year we are driving our car in Europe for long trips on our holidays. Possible hours of 100 mph+ driving on motorways, so engine needs to be well protected!
Basing on your oil list, checking their availability in Europe and them meeting European A3 or A5 ACEA standards, I have chosen Amsoil signature series 0w30. I will be putting this oil instead of factory fill next Friday.
Did I make a good choice or this oil will not give enough protection in spirited driving or can you recommend something else?
It needs to meet those ACEA standards so that dealership pours it in and does not complain about warranty etc.
Thank you!
.
.
===================================
.
.
If you’ve read much of my Blog, you know that I always recommend using the thinnest motor oil that will still maintain reasonable “hot” oil pressure. Of course your car was designed to run 0W-20 Honda Engine Oil Type 2.0, according to the factory recommendations you mention.
To help put your mind at ease, keep in mind that your car had to meet Honda’s durability requirements using that oil. And it is highly unlikely that you could ever run it harder than Honda’s own durability tests. So, if your car is still stock as the factory built it, I would suggest you just use that oil and worry about other things in life.
With that said, since 0W30 was given as an alternate motor oil choice, you should be OK if you have your heart set on using it, even though it may not be the absolute best choice for your car. Because using thicker oil than what you really need, is going the wrong way.
After seeing this spec, do you still think that Amsoil Signature Series 0w30 is a bad, non optimal choice for this engine?
It seems that 0w20 is only for CAFE and other, Xw30 oils may be a better idea for protection?
.
.
================================
.
.
Hi again Mick,
If you’ve read my entire Blog, you would know that a motor oil’s viscosity plays no particular role in its wear protection capability.
In the case of rod and main bearings, they are kept separated and protected by the incompressible “liquid” hydrodynamic oil wedge that is formed as the oil is pulled into the clearance between the spinning components. All liquid oil is incompressible. So, as long as there is sufficient oil pressure to maintain that incompressible “liquid” hydrodynamic oil wedge, there can be no wear, no matter what the oil’s viscosity is.
In other engine areas where an oil “film” is what is critical, viscosity does not matter there either, because it is the oil’s additive package that contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components, which has nothing to do with viscosity. For all the details, see my “Section 2 – Motor Oil Viscosity Selection”. There you will see the advantages of using the thinnest oil, that will still maintain reasonable “hot” oil pressure.
So again, if your cars is stock as it was built by the factory, there should be no reason why the Honda 0W20 is a problem, since that is what Honda would have used during it’s durability testing. On the other hand, even though 0W30 will not provide all the advantages of the thinner 0W20, for your purposes it should still be fine, since it was given as an optional viscosity by the factory. For your particular type of usage, you would have a tough time telling them apart. So, deciding between those two oils, is not an absolute YES/NO situation. Therefore, use whichever one let’s you sleep better at night.
I will take all this discussion to mean that you will not be sending me the 0W20 oil for testing. So, I will remove the Shipping Instructions.
Thank you for the previous response, I believe I am starting to understand that motor oil companies are barely a step above snake-oil salesmen.
I do not completely understand viscosity shear and it’s importance in the scheme of things. I get the fact that basically what we are talking about as an example would be a 30 weight oil that for whatever reason, drops down to acting like a 20w or 15w. Since the viscosity actually has no bearing on the oil’s ability to lubricate a bearing surface – does it matter? The other question is if shear occurs, is it a temporary condition or one that is permanent? One reason for asking this is that I have read a company description that their oil may experience viscosity shear if used in the wrong application.
Take care, Charlie
.
.
=====================================
.
.
Hi again Charlie,
Yes, Oil Companies are sometimes among the absolute worst for false advertising. But, there are some well-known motor oil Brands that are reputable and do offer some excellent products. On the other hand, there are some lesser-known motor oil Brands that are not as reputable and do not offer products that perform well. Yet they hype their motor oils as the best on the market. Buyer beware.
Synthetic multi-viscosity motor oils don’t typically require the use of viscosity improvers/modifiers. But, conventional multi-viscosity motor oils do contain viscosity improvers/modifiers that prevent them from thinning out as much as they normally would as they get hotter. And yes, as those viscosity improvers/modifiers permanently deteriorate from shearing over time with usage, the oil can become thinner when hot, than it was to begin with. But, that is simply NOT a problem as long as the oil is changed at reasonable intervals. Because that will keep you ahead of enough deterioration that could cause a problem.
I have wear tested a number of used synthetic and conventional oils with 5,000 miles (the ideal change interval for normal daily driven street vehicles) on them. I also sent those oils to the Lab for additional testing that I do not perform myself. And the results showed that every one of those oils was STILL within its original viscosity’s specified range.
A motor oil’s viscosity plays no particular role in its wear protection capability. In the case of rod and main bearings, they are kept separated and protected by the incompressible “liquid” hydrodynamic oil wedge that is formed as the oil is pulled into the clearance between the spinning components. All liquid oil is incompressible. So, as long as there is sufficient oil pressure to maintain that incompressible “liquid” hydrodynamic oil wedge, there can be no wear, no matter what the oil’s viscosity is.
In other engine areas where an oil “film” is what is critical, viscosity does not matter there either, because it is the oil’s additive package that contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components, which has nothing to do with viscosity.
But, viscosity is still an important motor oil characteristic. Engine build differences and engine wear differences, result in different clearances. And depending on how robust an oiling system is, different clearances can require different motor oil viscosities for engines to generate acceptable oil pressure. The looser the clearances, the faster a given motor oil viscosity will bleed off through those clearances. Or the thinner the viscosity, the faster the oil will bleed off for given clearances. So, we need sufficient oil pressure to ensure that an adequate oil supply is always present at critical components, to protect an engine from wear and/or damage.
And having various motor oil viscosities available, allows us to select the correct oil for any given engine, no matter what its clearances may be. To cover all the possible variations, I recommend using the thinnest oil that will still maintain reasonable “HOT” oil pressure. And that viscosity requirement can vary from engine to engine, because of differences in clearances.
In addition to that, the viscosity chosen may also make a difference in mechanical engine noise. Sometimes, an engine might have a little mechanical tick or rattle that isn’t really a problem, other than bothering the owner, which can be eliminated by choosing the next thicker viscosity, than oil pressure requirements alone, may have required. So, viscosity choices can give us options to meet the needs of any given engine.
Hey , Rat ..
You say that a person should shake the containers of motor oil before pouring into engine . Makes sense that additives would settle at the bottom of bottles . But at the oil change stations they pump oil out of large drums . I don’t see any shaking going on at these places . I guess it would be best to bring your own oil?
.
.
===================================
.
.
Hi Jon,
Yes it would, if you want to get all the benefits from the oil that you paid for. But, if you don’t shake the bottles well, right before you give them the oil, it may not help you. The reason why shaking oil containers isn’t that critical for most cars, is that most cars are just normal daily drivers, and are not subjected to sever loading. So, if the oil in their engines isn’t fully as good as it was originally formulated to be, it won’t generally show up as a problem soon enough for most owners to really notice.
But, for real car guys, especially those who run their cars hard, who want only the best for their “Baby”, then thoroughly shaking the bottles before pouring the oil into your engine is the only way to go. You can see for yourself what I am talking about. If you pour oil out of say a white or other very light colored bottle without shaking it thoroughly, you can see what looks like some sort of sediment at the bottom, if you hold the bottle to the light so that you can see inside at the bottom of the bottle (usually shining light at the bottom and letting the light shine through the plastic works well). That is NOT dirt you are seeing, that is from your additive package.
Not shaking bottles of oil thoroughly, could even be a factor in some flat tappet engines wiping lobes, or not wiping lobes. If you buy the best oil on the market and don’t shake it well before pouring it into your engine, you are not getting everything you paid for. I always shake my bottles thoroughly, and when I do that, I never see anything at the bottom of the bottle after I pour it into an engine. There is the right way to do something, then there are other ways of doing it. I choose and recommend doing this the right way, which means shaking the bottles thoroughly first.
Thank you for all your work and all the great info. I don’t know if you are getting paid for your efforts, but I think you should. Would a Youtube channel be a good source of revenue?
.
.
=================================
.
.
Thanks Johnny, I’m glad to hear that you appreciate my Blog. No, I do not get paid one penny for my time and effort. I simply share my test data with others as a courtesy, because there is so much completely wrong information about motor oil out there.
People cannot believe most of what they read on Internet Forums or on Internet motor oil tech articles. They cannot believe anything that cam makers say. They cannot believe most engine builders. They cannot believe most of their buddies. They cannot believe most motor oil Advertising, etc, etc. Because most of what they read and are told, is complete garbage.
But, I back-up everything I post about motor oil with hard Engineering test data FACTS. I have always challenged anyone to PROVE anything I post is wrong. But, no one can PROVE the Physics and Chemistry involved in my testing are wrong. Because Science is the real deal.
The Engineering testing methodology I developed is proprietary, so making a YouTube video is not workable.
Could I ask another question before I go? In one of the chat rooms I noticed some guy carping on about the need for a zinc build up on the cams etc. He then goes on to say that your research is flawed because the zinc build up is not the same after 1000, 2000, 3000 miles. My question is, why would he believe that there is a zinc build up? The oil is in a constant state of motion and there detergent in the oil to prevent a build up of junk in the engine. If zinc is going to build up anywhere, wouldn’t it be in the oil filter?
.
.
===============================
.
.
Hi again Johnny,
To be blunt, he is an idiot. He is a perfect example of why I say people cannot believe most of what they read on the Internet. Unqualified people like that guy, make all kinds of ridiculous claims without even knowing what they talking about. What is his education? What are his qualifications? Has he ever done any testing of any kind? Or does he just sit behind his keyboard and throw out nonsense like that?
It’s people like him who perpetuate bad information on the Internet. Yet, he thinks he can pass judgment on my Engineering tests??? My test data exactly matches real world experience (see examples in my Blog). What can he say about that? I challenge him to PROVE the Science of Physics and Chemistry involved in my testing, are wrong. Who do you think will win that battle? No one can disprove Science, because it is the real deal, whether people like it or not.
Zinc does NOT build up on parts like some sort of plating process. Zinc simply does not work that way. It is activated by heat and pressure, and is depleted as it is used. That is why used oil analysis results show less zinc present in used oil, compared to when that oil was brand new.
That guy obviously does not even work on engines, or he would know what he said is garbage. Because you do NOT find a zinc coating all over engine parts. And remember, zinc quantities are given in “parts per million” or ppm. So, there is NOT enough actual zinc in an engine’s oil pan to even coat the parts in the first place. Challenge the guy on all that, if you are able to respond on that chat room.
Zinc quantities do NOT matter, in spite of what countless people have been brainwashed to believe. Because Engineering tests have shown over and over again, that some high zinc oils provide excellent wear protection, and some high zinc oils do NOT. So, looking just at the zinc quantity is totally worthless. And the use of zinc as the primary anti-wear component is outdated technology.
Modern extreme pressure anti-wear components are every bit as good as, and most often BETTER than zinc. That is why modern low zinc oils can perform so well. The FACT is, the only thing that matters when it comes to wear protection, is the psi value a motor oil can generate in my motor oil torture testing. The higher the psi value, the better the wear protection, no matter how much zinc is present.
HI,
Have you ever tested castor oils? There are quite a few of us out here with methanol burning historic racing motorcycle engines that traditionally used castor oils. I’ve not seen anyone claiming to match the protection these types of oils provide …unless I’ve missed something.
Castrol R was the oil of choice years ago but due to lack of availability in my country I now use Morris Oils MLR40.
I’d love to know hoe it performs relative to the others and to see if there is something better I should be using.
Cheers.
Greg
.
.
==============================
.
.
Hi Greg,
I have not tested castor oils. All the oils I have tested are shown on my Wear Protection Ranking List. I would expect today’s top performing motor oils to completely outperform castor oils. But, to know absolutely for sure, I’d have to test castor oil for comparison.
I have never seen nor heard of Morris Oils MLR40, so I’m totally unfamiliar with it. If you’d like to send me a brand new unopened bottle of it, I could test it for you, when I can fit it into my schedule. If you want to do that, let me know. And I can post shipping instructions for a couple of days.
Just signed up for your interesting blog. I have read your findings in full and also this page of comments. What I could not find was any reference to what factors, on a race only drag engine, determine the best weight oil to use. I assume clearances and materials factor greatly.
Also, again, race only drag engine, what have you to offer on filter micron requirements?
.
.
=============================
.
.
Hi Jeff,
I mention in numerous places in my Blog, that the recommended oil pressure rule of thumb for racing engines is, “at least 10 psi for every 1,000 rpm”. That automatically takes in account motor oil viscosity, engine clearances and oiling system capacity. I recommend using the thinnest oil that will meet that rule of thumb.
I don’t call for a certain oil filter micron requirement. But, oil filters that filter out extremely fine particles should be avoided for racing engines, because they restrict oil flow more than the more free flowing racing oil filters do. Moroso used to offer and still may, racing oil filters that do not cause excessive oil flow restriction, since they don’t filter out extremely fine particles. So, I suggest you look for a racing oil filter like that, for racing only engines.
Hi,
It it possible to test these motorcycle oils (in the very common for motorcycle use 10W40 grade) : Amsoil 10W40 Synthetic Metric Motorcycle Oil, Motul 7100 10W40, Bel-Ray EXP 10W40?
.
.
==============================
.
.
Hi there,
If you want to send me a brand new unopened bottle of each oil you would like to see tested, I could test them when I can fit them into my schedule. If you want to do that, let me know and I can provide shipping instructions.
Hello,
First i would like to say what an incredible blog you have. I lived in a complete darkness before i stumbled upon it on the web.
I have a 1990 Mini ERA Turbo.
The engine in this automobile shares oil with transmission and on top of that is equipped with turbo. I am not a big fan of mineral oils, but everyone i talk to, or anywhere i read say that i should put mineral oil in it with high zinc content. And i think that a better performance can be achieved with a right synthetic. Im not an engineer but i have seen open Mercedes engines at 250k miles with 10k intervals on mobil synthetic, and it looked new inside.
Is there a particular oil you can recommend for my Mini?
Your feedback will be highly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Tony.
.
.
===================================
.
.
Hi Tony,
I’m glad to hear you like my Blog.
The idea that you need to use mineral oil in it with high zinc content, is only an old MYTH perpetuated by people who don’t know the facts, and have been brainwashed to believe that MYTH, simply because it has been repeated over and over for many years. But, repeating WRONG information a million times does NOT make it magically become true.
I’d recommend selecting a highly ranked oil from my Wear Protection Ranking List, no matter how much zinc it has in it. The only thing that matters is the psi value an oil is capable of producing in my Engineering testing. The higher the psi value, the better the wear protection.
It is completely worthless to just look at the zinc content an oil has, because some high zinc oils provide excellent wear protection, while other high zinc oils only provide poor wear protection.
For a sbc new build with flat tappet hyd cam,what lube would you use for first few minutes? Oil will be 5-30, seat pressure 100# on springs. How do you feel about grooved lifters or bore groove? Thanks in advance and for all your testing and sharing. Dan
.
.
===============================
.
.
Hi Dan (Michael?),
When you say lube for the first few minutes, I will take it that you mean assembly lube. Everyone who builds engines no doubt has their own favorite assembly lube. Mine is STP Oil Treatment used only as an assembly lube and applied directly to critical component surfaces. But, I do NOT pour a bottle of STP Oil Treatment in with the motor oil.
STP Oil Treatment tenaciously clings to surfaces to provide excellent wear protection. It stays on so well, that you cannot wipe it off even if you try, unless you also use some type of cleaning agent such as brake cleaner or other. Not all assembly lubes cling that well. But, for cylinder walls and rings, I use a 50/50 mix of motor oil and STP Oil Treatment. I’ve used STP Oil Treatment in that manner for many years with 100% success. I also prime each engine well, which is very important, before firing it up for the first time.
It is of course also very important to use an excellent motor oil for first fire as well. I do NOT recommend using so-called Break-In oils because they are formulated to “allow” wear, not to “prevent” wear. And using them with their very poor wear protection capability, can put flat tappet engines in extreme danger of wiping lobes. And that wiped lobe failure happens all too often. See an example of that in my Blog.
Break-In oils are nothing but a scam designed to separate people from their money. The companies that sell Break-In oils, clearly don’t know what they are doing, no matter what their name is. And they apparently don’t test their own products either, so they don’t even know that they are putting engines at risk. No engine built “properly”, has ever required Break-In oil. New engines break-in just fine on their own with no special help at all, even when excellent wear prevention oils are used, such as synthetic Mobil 1 which is used as factory-fill oil in numerous high performance vehicles worldwide.
I have never ever used Break-In oil in my life, and have never had a problem. Factories have never ever used Break-In oil either, and factory engines did not have any problem breaking-in properly in the past, and still do not have any problem breaking-in properly today. And they always come with a warranty as well. See my Tech Article “10. Break-In Oils – Do we Really need them?”, for all the details on that topic.
I recommend using a highly ranked oil from my Wear Protection Ranking List, for break-in AND for after break-in. The same excellent oil can be used for the entire life of an engine. My personal choice these days is 5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability.
I’m OK with grooved lifters or lifter bores, though I’ve never felt the need to use them myself.
Again, thanks again for writing and maintaining this blog, it is good stuff for sure.
So, the folks on another blog are beating me up about using 5w20, a good 5w20 (Quaker State Ultimate) as recommended by your blog, on the road course. Oil sump temps on the track will go up to about 270-280F and track sessions are 20-30 minutes. Engine RPMs stay above 4K pretty much all the time. “They” are telling me that I should be running 5w50. The manufacturer recommends 5w20 (2016 Ford 5 liter v-8) and does not recommend an alternative weight oil. BUT in earlier versions of this same engine, Frod recommended 5w50 for track use. That recommendation is no long in the manual.
I do not have an oil pressure gauge on my car so I cannot tell you what my oil pressure is like when it is this hot.
Am I all wet in using a 5w20 on the track?
.
.
==============================
.
.
Hi Jim, it’s good to hear from you.
Thanks for the kind words, I appreciate that.
First of all, you are not contacting me to say that you blew up your engine at the track. So, right there we know you are doing fine with running QSUD 5W20. And the oil temps you are seeing at the track are a bit hot, but they are not over the top for racing conditions. So, your car is doing a reasonable job of keeping the oil temps under control. But, if the temps get much hotter, I would consider looking into adding an oil cooler if you don’t already have one, or improving the oil cooler setup, if you do have one already.
As for you getting beat up, “They” do NOT know what they are talking about. “They” are among those unqualified people who perpetuate bad information about motor oil on the Internet. Uninformed people have for years and years just “assumed” that thicker oil provided better wear protection, with no data what so ever, to back that up.
My Engineering tests on motor oil have proven over and over again, that viscosity plays no particular role in a motor oil’s wear protection capability. Wear protection capability is determined by the oil’s additive package which contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components.
The worst thing you could do is run 5W50, because that would reduce oil flow, reduce lubrication, reduce oil cooling of critical components, drive up bearing temps, increase sump temps, form more air bubbles/foam in the oil, and decrease HP to the ground.
The Ford guys may have read my Blog, and then decided they were wrong about calling for 5W50 at the track, and then removed it from the manual. I am somewhat familiar with Ford’s engine durability testing, and even the road racing you do, does not reach the level of torture that Ford puts their engines through. So, if Ford calls for 5W20 in your engine, which it was designed for, they know for a FACT, that your engine will be just fine with it, no matter how you run it.
See my “SECTION 2 – MOTOR OIL VISCOSITY SELECTION”, for all the benefits of running thinner oil.
I see no reason for you to change the viscosity you are using now. You have been doing just fine with it, so ignore those who are beating you up about it. Because you are the one who is doing the right thing, NOT them. People like them always think that gang mentality, nastiness and emotional outbursts will determine what is correct, even if they have absolutely no technical data to back up what they claim. But, Engineering and Science do NOT work that way. Engineering test data FACTS, PROVE what is correct, even if it goes against the MYTHS that people have been brainwashed to believe.
If push came to shove, and you felt you just had to use a thicker oil in order to sleep better at night, then you could switch to QSUD 5W30. But, I would caution you to NOT go any thicker than that.
Jim
.
.
====================================
.
.
Hi again Jim,
You are right, I am not interested in Forum arguments about motor oil. Been there, done that. In those situations, everyone argues (as you know, those discussions are NOT simply Q & A) endlessly until most get tired and move on to another thread. Everyone there thinks they are an expert (even though they have zero qualifications), just because they have read some lame Internet articles about motor oil, which they don’t even understand are mostly garbage.
And those know it all people always gang up and attack the few who dare to question their unproven claims. And after all that time and agony, no one is ever convinced of anything, no matter how much data and proof is provided. People still end up right where they started. The level of stupidity you find on Forum discussions about motor oil is just mind boggling. So, the whole thing is absolutely a total waste of time.
That is one of the reasons why I started this Blog in the first place. We don’t have arguments here. People can read my FACTUAL Engineering test data, and then ask questions if they want to. Then I answer their questions. That’s it. It is a much more pleasant and educational environment here.
So, feel free to ask any questions that may come up after reading my Blog, or any questions that come up from Forum discussions.
Hello again.
When are you going to do a blog like that on gear oils?
I have a question.
I have a Mercedes 2.3-16 with manual transmission. Every more or less reputable mechanic/specialist with whom i talk to are saying that i should only use factory gear oil in tranny and rear LSD diff, because apparently they were build to run only OEM oil back in the day and will not work/grind gears when using modern synthetic oils.
Thank you.
Tony.
.
.
=======================================
.
.
Hi Tony,
I will not be doing a Blog on gear oils. Very few car guys show much interest in gear oil. But, almost all car guys are interested in motor oil.
The only problem I am aware of from putting modern synthetic gear oil in older car trannies and conventional diffs, and have experienced it myself, is that the synthetic gear oil can cause leaks that did not exist with conventional gear oil.
Sometimes you can just change back to conventional gear oil and the leaks will stop. But, other times, you have to replace seals that are leaking. As for limited slip diffs, you should follow factory recommendations on what gear oil to use, to avoid the possibility of causing clutch pack slippage.
There is no real pressing need to put modern synthetic gear oil in older daily driver type street vehicle trannies and diffs. So, to avoid any potential problems, I suggest you just use the gear oil recommended by the factory.
Hello 540 Rat. You are amazing! The work you have done has made things very clear regarding motor Oils. I’ve always liked Valvoline High Mileage btw. The question I have is this. For a 2001 Silverado 2500 HD with 8.1 which oil would you use? I’m on the fence between Pennzoil Ultra Platinum 5w30, Valvoline High Mileage 5W30 and Quaker State Ultimate Durability. My first Oil change I put in the Pennzoil Ultra. I’m thinking of using a blend of 60/40 Ultra and Valvoline with top offs if needed with the less expensive Ultimate durability for Summers and 60/40 Valvoline/Pennzoil Ultra during Summers. These are the only 3 oils I will consider after reading your blog. I like the Cleaning ability of the Ultra and the Nat Gas Aspect but the Film strength of the Valvoline. Please Advise. THANKS!!!
.
.
=============================
.
.
Hi Johnny, thanks for the kind words.
Here’s how those 3 oils compare together:
5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability, API SN, GM dexos 1 approved, synthetic (gold bottle) = 113,377 psi
5W30 Pennzoil “Ultra” Platinum, Pure Plus Technology, made from pure natural gas, API SN, GM dexos 1 approved = 99,039 psi
5W30 Valvoline MaxLife High Mileage, API SN, GM dexos 1 approved, synthetic blend (red bottle) = 92,639 psi
For me, the clear choice is 5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability, which I use myself. I do NOT recommend mixing oils, because that is not ideal. I would only do that if you are on the road, and need to add oil without the oil you are using being available. So, I suggest you make a choice of just ONE of those oils that you feel best about for your own needs, and use ONLY that oil.
540 RAT,
I appreciate the dialogue on this subject. I also appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt in regards to the social media stuff. I don’t play those games. I contacted you out of respect for the passion and breadth of your testing. While we disagree on some points, that does not prohibit us from discussing those points. In regards to your points about Calcium Sulfonate, the effects you described in terms of it helping poor oils and hurting good oils makes sense. Every Additive has a sweet spot in which it works the best, and any treat rate above or below that “window” will cause a drop in performance. That is certainly the case, as you have well documented, with ZDDP – too much is a bad thing.
In regards to our race engine testing, we perform pre and post test measurements of critical wear parts – primarily cam lobes. This allows us to accurately and repeatedly measure wear on engine parts in the environment they operate in, and that provides us with a microns/hour rate rate for every oil we test.
I do understand your point of taking an oil to a “failure” point, which is why I thought it could be interesting to “overlay” each of our testing methods on common dexos 1 formulas to see what it revealed from a chemistry standpoint. With that said, I understand and respect your decision to decline collaborating on the dexos testing. By the way, I did not mention who I worked for simply because I contacted you of my own volition, so I did not want to confuse my own personal curiosity with anything to do with the company I work for.
Thanks again for the dialogue.
Respectfully,
Lake Speed, Jr.
.
.
===================================
.
.
I appreciate you wrapping things up in a pleasant manner. But, I do have some parting comments about all this.
You stated above, “While we disagree on some points, that does not prohibit us from discussing those points.” So, I have to make something perfectly clear, once and for all hopefully, even though I mentioned it previously. And that is, agreeing or disagreeing only applies to opinions and theories. But, the data I post on this Blog is NOT my opinion, and is NOT my theory. The information I post on this Blog, is the “SCIENTIFIC TEST DATA” that comes from the Physics and Chemistry involved in the testing I perform. No one, and I mean no one, can disagree with Science. Science is FACT, the REAL DEAL, no matter if anyone likes it or dislikes it. If for example, you don’t like gravity, it does NOT matter if you dislike it. Science does not care what you think. Because Science simply is what it is. It’s the same idea with my Scientific test data, it simply is what it is, like it or not. If you think you can disagree with Science, knock yourself out. Who do you think will win that?
You never said what specific oils you test, which was bothersome, because that does makes it a one-sided discussion. So, I can only “assume”, which is something I hate to do, that you are testing some of the same oils that I have tested, based on your comment that our data does not always match. Yet, you do not provide any specific data at all, as to the actual amount of wear over the number of hours of run time, nor as I said, which oil is being discussed. That is rather frustrating, because you said previously that you wanted to “share” data. But, you have not been honest about that, since you have shared nothing at all, while I have shared all my data with the whole world.
That is like having a debate between two candidates, with only one speaking. So, that would seem to confirm that I made the right decision to decline your request that I collaborate with you on dexos 1 testing. I would have done all the testing for you, while getting nothing in return from you. So, based on our dialogue, as you put it, my initial suspicion of you and/or your motives, even if being nasty was not the intent, appears to have been well founded.
I get the impression (since you won’t give me anything concrete to go on) that you largely test oils that did not perform well in my testing, yet you feel those oils do OK in your testing. But, if you are finding measureable wear per “hour”, then that would make the case that my testing is indeed accurate, regarding oils that did not perform very well. Poor performing oils that allow measureable wear in such a short amount of time, are causing a “slow failure”, you might say. Measureable wear in such a short time, is simply NOT acceptable, and indicates that you are using oils that do not provide sufficient wear protection. That situation describes poor performing oils that have a very low margin of safety, as Engineers say. With oils performing that poorly, you are lucky that you have not experienced outright total failures right away.
So, you may want to rethink your race engine oil testing. Because from what you have mentioned about the short term wear you have been experiencing, your testing is not serving you well. Therefore, it sounds to me, like your engines would do far better if you take my test data to heart, and make use of it to select much better performing oils. For hardcore flat tappet race engines, I would use an oil that can produce over 100,000 psi “film strength/load carrying capability/shear resistance” in my testing. Oils that perform that well, will provide sufficient wear protection, as well as provide a comfortable margin of safety.
You apparently have not read the examples of how my test data exactly matches real world experience. So, I’ll share a couple of them here:
MY OIL TEST DATA AND RACE TRACK EXPERIENCE ARE IDENTICAL
1.
An oval track dirt racer (his class is extremely competitive, so he asked that his name be left out) on the SpeedTalk Forum runs a 7200 rpm, solid flat tappet, 358ci Small Block Chevy motor, with valve spring pressures of about 160 on the seat and 400 open, that are shimmed to .060” from coil bind. The rules and the combination of parts, were causing him to experience repeated cam failures while using high zinc, semi-synthetic 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 motor oil. Lab Report Data from testing performed by Professional Lab, “ALS Tribology” in Sparks, Nevada, showed that this oil contains 1557 ppm zinc, 1651 ppm phosphorus, and 3 ppm moly. In spite of this being a high zinc oil, that most folks would “assume” provides excellent wear protection, he experienced wiped lobe cam failure about every 22 to 25 races.
A race consists of one 8 lap (a lap is typically 3/8 mile) heat race and one 20 lap feature race, plus any caution laps. If you add it all up, 25 races only total about 281 miles at the point of cam failure. So, that is a perfect example of what I’ve been saying all along about high zinc levels being absolutely NO GUARANTEE of adequate wear protection. And my test data on this 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 motor oil, shows that it produces a wear protection capability of only 71,206 psi, which puts it in the MODEST wear protection category, and it ranks a very disappointing 149th out of 198 oils tested so far. That means of course that there are 148 different oils I’ve tested that provide better wear protection.
So, my test data ACCURATELY PREDICTED EXACTLY what he experienced during racing. And that is, that this oil does not provide high enough wear protection capability to provide a sufficient margin of safety for this engine’s operating conditions. Looking at my “Wear Protection Ranking List” and choosing a much higher ranked oil, would have prevented all those cam failures. Repeatedly suffering cam failures in motors with so little time on them, may have been considered by some folks to be a normal consumption of parts back in the ‘60’s or ‘70’s. But, in the 21st Century that we live in now, by any measure, that is for sure premature failure. We no longer have to accept that as the cost of doing business, because we can do far better now.
So, he switched to the super micro polished billet lifters from PPPC and the cam life went up to 40 races, which was an improvement since he could now go 450 miles between failures. But, that was still clearly unacceptable. Then later on, he started using “Oil Extreme Concentrate” as an additive to the 10W30 Brad Penn, and he’s never lost a lobe on a cam since. Adding the “Oil Extreme Concentrate” completely eliminated his premature wiped lobe cam failures. At the time of this writing, the motor had gone 70+ Races without issue, and was still doing fine. This “Oil Extreme Concentrate” is one additive that actually works as advertised, and makes low ranked oils far better than they were to begin with. And that is PRECISELY WHAT MY MOTOR OIL TEST DATA PREDICTED as well.
Here’s how. I also added “Oil Extreme Concentrate” to 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 semi-synthetic, as part of my motor oil “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” research. And with 2.0 OZ of “Oil Extreme Concentrate” added per qt, which is the amount intended for racing, its wear protection capability shot up by a BREATH TAKING 56%, to an amazing 111,061psi, which puts it in the INCREDIBLE wear protection category, and now ranks it a jaw dropping 20th out of 198 oils tested so far. So, it moved up a whopping 129 ranking positions, just by adding the “Oil Extreme Concentrate”. This totally accounts for the reason all his cam lobe failures were eliminated.
2.
In addition to this, a NASCAR Race Team out of North Carolina (they did not want their name associated with any Internet motor oil arguments that may come up, so they asked that their name be left out, which I honored) was so impressed with the motor oil “Wear Protection Capability Testing” I perform, that they sent me 3 NASCAR Racing Oils they use, for testing. They valued my testing efforts enough to include me in what they do, which is quite an endorsement, considering the Professional level of Racing they are involved in.
The three oils they sent me were high zinc synthetic Mobil 1 Racing Oils, because they were having wear problems when using these oils, and wanted to see if I could shed any light on that by testing them. Lab Report Data from testing performed on these oils by Professional Lab, “ALS Tribology” in Sparks, Nevada, showed that on average, these oils contained 1774 ppm zinc, 1658 ppm phosphorus, and 1444 ppm moly. And because these were all high zinc oils, most folks would “assume” that they’d provide sufficient wear protection. However, the results of my testing showed that these oils only provided POOR WEAR PROTECTION CAPABILITY.
They were:
0W50 = 73,811 psi, which ranks 134th out of almost 200 oils tested so far.
0W30 = 71,923 psi, which ranks 146th
0W = 55,080 psi, which ranks 192nd
I wouldn’t even use these extremely poor oils in an ordinary daily driver. So, they were clearly NOT a good choice for their racing application, which confirmed why they had wear problems. With that information in hand, they selected other oils to use, and their wear problems went away. This is yet another perfect example of what I’ve been saying about high zinc levels being NO GUARENTEE of adequate wear protection. If I had tested those oils before they started using them, I could have saved them time, money and grief.
These are just a couple of examples PROVING once and for all, that my test data EXACTLY MATCHES REAL WORLD RACE TRACK EXPERIENCE, and that my test data is the spot on REAL DEAL. This completely confirms that my test results WILL ACCURATELY PREDICT what we can expect from motor oils in running engines on the track or on the street, EVEN if those oils are high zinc oils. So, that should be more than enough proof to satisfy anyone who was skeptical of how well my test data compares to the real world.
Take care,
540 RAT
I am asking this because I have no idea what it entails? Have you considered making this a searchable page? Like just for diesel oils, or just oils for older vehicles?
.
.
======================================
.
.
Hi Derrel,
This Blog was fairly simple and not all that super long when it was first started. And the incredible interest from all over the world, has resulted in enormous growth since it was started a few years ago. So, it is simply too long to rebuild it now. And most people have no trouble reading the tech articles or working their way down the Wear Protection Ranking List to find what they are looking for.
Take care,
540 RAT
I waded through some more of the blog. It seems pretty clear that diesel oils are not the best choice for gasoline rigs. However, so far it makes no mention if maybe gasoline oils may be better for light duty diesel cars & 3/4 to one ton diesel vehicles?
.
.
===============================
.
.
Derrel,
Check out my Tech Article “30. Five Lightweight Diesel Oils Tested and Compared”. I think many of your questions about oils that can be used in both gasoline and Diesel engines, will answered there with the “combination” oils that were tested.
Take care,
540 RAT
Thank you for the original blog. It was a excellent read. I am currently running Quaker State Ultimate Durability 5w-20 (new green bottle). Have you compared this new formula/marketing technique to the yellow that proves such stong results? I am running this is a 2016 Mustang GT with a larger throttle body, cold air intake, engine tune (all by ford racing, parts from the Shelby gt350). Since making the change from motorcraft 5w-20 synthetic blend… thanks
For all who disagree with his test data on quaker state, you can read that they called out Mobil 1, Castrol, and Valvoline in a wear test which would be shown to the public. Not one company took them on their offer. Not surprising based off of the test data you presented.
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/2003/quaker-state-gets-no-takers-in-'wear-war'-challenge
.
.
===================================
.
.
Hi there,
Thanks for the heads up on that change, and for the link to the Quaker State Challenge. Quaker State’s confidence in that challenge, matches up with how well the gold bottle version performed in my own testing.
This green bottle oil is not new, it is just in a new bottle. Quaker State said:
We’re making our entire line of bottles green.
Why? Because we look better in green. Anyway, it’s what’s on the inside that counts – which is why we haven’t changed a drop, just the color of the bottle.
So what’s the deal with these new bottles?
We’re all about keeping it simple at Quaker State, so now all of our bottles are the same color—green. So things don’t get confusing, each bottles’ label and cap is unique to its corresponding motor oil.
Does Quaker State still offer full synthetic?
You betcha. To find Quaker State Ultimate Durability Full Synthetic motor oil, just look for the green bottle with a gold label and gold cap.
If Quaker State Ultimate Durability is in a green bottle, does that mean it’s the same as Quaker State Advanced Durability?
Nope! Quaker State Ultimate Durability will remain a full synthetic motor oil and Quaker State Advanced Durability will remain a conventional motor oil. They just wear semi-matching outfits.
To make sure you’re getting Quaker State Ultimate Durability Full Synthetic motor oil, check the bottle for a gold label and gold cap.
What happened to Quaker State Defy? My engine has 80,000 miles and I need high mileage motor oil.
Quaker State Defy High Mileage motor oil is now called Quaker State High Mileage motor oil. Rest assured, the product is the same, just a shorter name!
To find Quaker State High Mileage motor oil, look for the all green-bottle with the red label and red cap.
What’s different about the oil?
Absolutely nothing. We’ve updated the look of our packaging – not the formulation inside. It’s the same reliable oil, just in a new green bottle.
How does the Quaker State packaging change help me?
To streamline your shopping experience, Quaker State has added a product comparison chart to the back labels of the new multi-quart bottles to make it easy to select the right Quaker State motor oil for your vehicle.
The new aesthetics are pretty cool, but in addition to being green, the new Quaker State bottles feature an improved heavy duty cap, optimized ergonomics for easy pouring and handling, clear tiering across portfolio with color codes caps and labels, and prominent placement of viscosity grade to aid in navigation.
Take care,
540 RAT
Hey, I’ve read you’re amazing blog I since now run Mobil 1 ESP formula 5w30 which is quite a great oil and I experience so lower temperatures which is AWESOME !
What’s the BESTway to properly warm up a car and its oil? let it idle for a while, wainting that the oil reach 158 deg farein or 176 or even 194 deg f? or driving it around right away, just couple seconds after starting it? Or something else?
I know that you’re saying that a good oil pressure’s rule of thumb is 10 psi per 1000 rpm but, is 3 psi (= 0.2 bar) or a bit less at idle (800 rpm) when hot (90 or 100 deg celsius or more which is approx 194 or 212 deg fahrenheit or more) is ok or too low of a pressure? Is it safe?
Of course there is not a lot of pressure but a good oil flow is still there right?
Anyway, tell me your thoughts.
Thanks again.
.
.
=================================
.
.
Hi Clement,
The best way to warm a car up is to simply start it up, and then without waiting, drive drive it easy until it reaches normal operating temperature, which is usually in the 10 to 15 minute time frame for most vehicles. Once it is up to normal operating temperature, you can run it hard without worrying about the motor oil. See my Tech Article, “23. Multi-viscosity motor oils are not exactly what some people think”, for all the details.
The old rule of thumb of “10 psi per 1000 rpm” is a general “recommendation” for racing engines. However, it is NOT an absolute requirement. And for street vehicles, as long as your engine is not WAY below that value, you should be fine. But, 3 psi or a bit less at 800 rpm hot idle, is less pressure than I would like to see, which also indicates lower flow through the engine than I would like.
If it were me, I would look into installing a high volume oil pump, if they are available for your engine. That would increase your hot idle oil pressure and oil flow. And the oil pump’s pressure relief valve will control the oil pressure’s limit at higher rpm. Doing this would be quicker, easier and cheaper than a total engine rebuild of a worn out engine, which could be the root cause of such low oil pressure. Worn out engines with loose clearances will result in low oil pressure.
Take care,
540 RAT
Forgotten to mention : Should I then stick with 5w30 or should I keep lowering viscosity and trying a 5W20 like the quaker state?
Also, as far as pressures are concerned, they good when I’m not a hot idle, I have approx 1 bar every 1000 rpm which approx 14.5 psi every 1000 rpm.
So I’m just concerned about idle.
.
.
================================
.
.
In your particular case, and for any engine that was not designed for 5W20 in the first place, I would not recommend going to a viscosity that low. So for you, between those two viscosities, stay with the 5W30. See my comment above about oil pressure.
540 RAT
Hi Rat,
Hope things are going well for you. I have a couple of quick questions.
When looking at the oils in the list, if there is just a variation in the viscosity between one that you have tested and one that appears not to have been tested, can we assume safely that the not tested oil would perform closely to the tested oil? Yes, I know you dislike the “assume” word. You have 5W30 Valvoline Maxlife, synthetic blend at 108,045 psi. I prefer to use a 10W30 in this particular engine and there is a 10W30 Valvoline Maxlife available.
You mention occasionally that it is best to use recently tested oils to ensure that we are using ones that you have tested and that they are not a different formula. Would it be possible on future tests to simply add the Month/Year that the oil was tested?
And just an observation about the Royal Purple oil brand. On our 434 powered Monza – bracket car – my son wanted to try the RP stuff. We race on methanol fuel and what I found after 18 passes was that there was some type of reaction between that oil and we believe the methanol that caused it to “gel”. Our vacuum pump, vacuum lines, puke tank and valve covers were loaded with this purplish gel. We follow a set procedure of leaning the engine out at the end of the day to build heat and dissipate some of the moisture left by the methanol along with using a fogging oil down the carburetor to coat the internal surfaces in between races. Switching over to the Valvoline VR1 oils has not shown this gel issue.
.
.
===============================
.
.
Hi again Charles, it’s good to hear from you.
That question has come up a number of times before. And the answer of course remains the same. You cannot safely assume that an untested oil would perform similarly to a tested oil from the same line of oil, that only varies by viscosity. Because some oils do perform similarly and some oils do not.
It just depends on what the oil company decided to do regarding how much money they invest in individual products. It has often been that the best selling viscosity would get the best and most expensive additive package formula. Producing and marketing motor oil is only a business for Oil Companies. So, they typically do what returns the highest profits, like any other Company. So, if you don’t test it, you cannot know for sure.
I have already added the season and the year that I tested each oil, as I post new test data. And I will continue to do that from now on. But, there is no need to break it down to the particular month. That would add no meaningful data. Because it would be too specific to take into account how long a bottle of oil might have been sitting on an Auto Parts Store shelf.
I appreciate the info on the Royal Purple oil.
Thanks for getting in touch,
540 RAT
Love this info, Thanks Again 540 RAT! Have you considered doing something similar for the ATF or gear oil families of oils? I do not wish to invoke never ending dreams of oils left to test?
.
.
====================================
.
.
Hi Derrel, I’m glad to hear that you appreciate my Engineering test data and related motor oil info.
The answer to your question is that very few car guys even care about ATF or gear oil, so testing them is not worth the effort. But, virtually all car guys care about motor oil, so I will continue to test only motor oil.
Thanks for your interest,
540 RAT
Hey 540 RAT,
Awesome page, I bought into the whole Royal purple is the best like many people did, after trying to find some real research on them compared to other oils I became suspicious. Then I stumbled upon your site which is a treasure trove of information. What do you recommend for manual transmission oil and what type of coolant.
Keep up the good work I tell everyone about this site!
Jay F
.
.
===============================
.
.
Hi Jay, thanks for the kind words. I’m glad to hear you like my Blog.
I don’t have any particular recommendations for those.
Take care,
540 RAT
540 RAT,
Thank you for all the time and expense you have put into the very detailed and honest work you do. Are you planning on testing the new CK-4 diesel oils any time soon? As I am sure you are aware there is a dark cloud over the use of these new oils in older diesel applications. It is very confusing to many when Ford says they do not recommend the use of ck4 oils in any of their diesels then they post a list of certain ck4 oils they will certify is ok to use. From what I have read the real concern with the use of ck4 oils in older diesels is that they have lowered the zinc and phosphorus levels to levels that will cause high. The confusing thing for me is that if zinc/phosphorus levels are the real concern then for instance the old rotella cj4 15w40 oils had 1088 ppm Phosphorus, 1190 zinc, and 40 Boron.
The new ck-4 Rotella 15w40 has 1080 phosphorus, 1203 zinc, and 207 boron. The old motorcraft cj4 had 1103 phosphorus, 1188 zinc, and no traceable boron. Looking at these numbers I took from the PQIA site show the new CK4 rotella having having higher zinc, very close numbers in phosphorus and much higher boron then the older cj4 rotella and motorcraft oils yet ford did not list the new rotella ck4 15w40 oil as a oil they recommend using.
I live on a farm and we have large tractors in excess of $150,000 that we are stumped on if we should be running these new oils in our equipment or not. When I contacted John Deere they said the new ck4 version is backward compatible and is fine to use in older equipment. When I contacted New Holland equipment they said it was ok to use the newer oil in the new tractors that have emissions controls in place but they do not recommend the use in their older equipment due to wear concerns. As you can see the whole ck4 oils thing is very shady and confusing on if we should be using it or not in OLDER EQUIPMENT.
Thank You again,
Dave Wilson
.
.
==================================
.
.
Hi Dave,
I didn’t have any particular plans to test CK-4 Diesel oils. The confusion about the required zinc level is the same as with old and new gasoline engine oils. The old idea that you have to have a certain zinc level to provide adequate wear protection, has been proven over and over again by my Engineering tests on motor oil, to be nothing but an old MYTH, that people have been brainwashed to believe over the past few decades.
If you’ve read much of my Blog, you know that my breakthrough testing on a wide variety of oils, shows that the old high zinc MYTH does not stand up when put to the test, and proves that the zinc level means absolutely nothing at all. Because some high zinc oils provide excellent wear protection, while other high zinc oils do not. So, just looking at the zinc level of any particular oil, is completely worthless.
But, people who are not familiar with my breakthrough Engineering tests, still believe the old MYTH because that is all they have ever been told. The people who still believe that MYTH include a lot of equipment manufacturers, engine builders, racers, farmers, etc, etc. The reason you get confusing information is that only a few people know the facts, while most do not. It sounds to me like John Deere knows the truth, while New Holland does not, though I have not tested any oils with their names on them.
You’ve come to the right place, because my Wear Protection Ranking List eliminates all the confusion. The FACT is, the only thing that matters when it comes to motor oil wear protection, is the psi value a motor oil can generate in my Engineering tests. The higher the psi value, the better the wear protection.
I have a fairly good cross-section of traditional Diesel oils on my ranking list for you to consider. If you do not find the specific oils on there that you absolutely need to know about, you could send me a couple of brand new unopened bottles of oils for testing if you’d like.
I may not be able to get to the testing right away, but I would try to fit it into my schedule as quick as I could. So, if you are not in a real panic for quick results, let me know, and I can provide shipping instructions.
Thanks for getting in touch,
540 RAT
Hello there, great information to be had here!
Question: Does one need to shake oil bottles before pouring them? In other words, do the additives stay in suspension, or do they settle after a while on the shelf?
Best,
Jim
.
.
==============================
.
.
Hi Jim,
Yes, the additive package does settle, so you should always shake motor oil well before pouring it into your engine.
Take care,
540 RAT
Ah, one other question, thanks.
My boat engines, which are gasoline GM 5.7l units that are marinized by Indmar- EDM/Barr, are recommended by the marinizer to use 15W40 Pennzoil. This weight is typically used for diesels. I’ve used this oil for the past 8 years and have not had a problem.
These engines are run typically in the 2k-3k range (low RPM, high load, as there really is no “coasting” on a boat), though WOT with the props I have is about 4500 RPM.
Would you be able to provide any insight on why this oil is recommended by the marinizer?
Thanks again,
Jim
.
.
================================
.
.
Hi again,
No, I cannot speak for them. But, some people incorrectly believe that motor oils labeled as traditional Heavy Duty Diesel oils, are great oils. But, they are not, and traditional Heavy Duty Diesel oils should ideally not be used in gasoline engines.
Read through my Wear Protection Ranking List and you will see why Diesel oils are a poor choice for gasoline engines. They are ranked very low overall.
Also look at my Tech Article, “12. Diesel Oil – Is it the right choice for High Performance gasoline engines?”, for more details
You have probably been fine because of your low rpm usage. But, your engine would be much better protected if you use highly ranked gasoline engine oils.
Take care,
540 RAT
Hello my friend,
I really appreciate what you are doing and this site was really helpful for me to understand more about oils. I have a question to you:
Could I send you a Honda 0w-20 Type 2.0 oil (only available in Europe, put in new type-r civics and new turbo Honda engines) so that you could do your analysis and put it in your list?
If so, how can I contact you so that you can give me your mailing address.
Thanks again!
.
.
=============================
.
.
Hi there, I will post the shipping instructions for 2 or 3 days, then remove them.
“The Shipping Instructions were removed later, per a following discussion”.
Thanks for your interest,
540 RAT
Another question is about oil choice for my 2017 Honda Civic 1.5 turbo. I live in Europe and instruction manual says the following about oil choice:
– Genuine Honda Motor Oil*1
– ACEA A3/B3
– ACEA A5/B5
*1: If you use 0W-20, you should use “Honda Engine Oil Type 2.0”.
Now, if I don’t want to use the Honda oil, I can use one that meets A3 or A5 standards. There are no A3 or A5 0w-20 oils so I presume the manual says, I can use whatever weight but it has to meet one of these standards?
Manual says further:
Use a Genuine Honda Motor oil or another commercial engine oil of suitable viscosity for the ambient temperature as shown.
0W-20 oil is formulated to improve fuel economy.
If “Honda Engine Oil Type 2.0” is not available, use 5W-30 or 0W-30.
540 Rat, my gf will be driving this car to work every day (lots of traffic and start stop driving, 8 miles one way). I on the other hand will be practicing spirited driving, redline, acceleration etc. Also, once a year we are driving our car in Europe for long trips on our holidays. Possible hours of 100 mph+ driving on motorways, so engine needs to be well protected!
Basing on your oil list, checking their availability in Europe and them meeting European A3 or A5 ACEA standards, I have chosen Amsoil signature series 0w30. I will be putting this oil instead of factory fill next Friday.
Did I make a good choice or this oil will not give enough protection in spirited driving or can you recommend something else?
It needs to meet those ACEA standards so that dealership pours it in and does not complain about warranty etc.
Thank you!
.
.
===================================
.
.
If you’ve read much of my Blog, you know that I always recommend using the thinnest motor oil that will still maintain reasonable “hot” oil pressure. Of course your car was designed to run 0W-20 Honda Engine Oil Type 2.0, according to the factory recommendations you mention.
To help put your mind at ease, keep in mind that your car had to meet Honda’s durability requirements using that oil. And it is highly unlikely that you could ever run it harder than Honda’s own durability tests. So, if your car is still stock as the factory built it, I would suggest you just use that oil and worry about other things in life.
With that said, since 0W30 was given as an alternate motor oil choice, you should be OK if you have your heart set on using it, even though it may not be the absolute best choice for your car. Because using thicker oil than what you really need, is going the wrong way.
Take care,
540 RAT
Hi again Rat,
I cannot add or edit to my previous comment so I decided to create another one.
The spec above I gave you seems to prefer 0w20 oil – as you mentioned, 0w30 may seem like a preferred oil.
This is a screenshot of the same instruction manual for my car but it specs oil not for Europe but outside Europe. Remember, same 1.5 turbo engine:
http://gofile.me/2SZL4/E4ycBlUf7
File is hosted on my home NAS.
After seeing this spec, do you still think that Amsoil Signature Series 0w30 is a bad, non optimal choice for this engine?
It seems that 0w20 is only for CAFE and other, Xw30 oils may be a better idea for protection?
.
.
================================
.
.
Hi again Mick,
If you’ve read my entire Blog, you would know that a motor oil’s viscosity plays no particular role in its wear protection capability.
In the case of rod and main bearings, they are kept separated and protected by the incompressible “liquid” hydrodynamic oil wedge that is formed as the oil is pulled into the clearance between the spinning components. All liquid oil is incompressible. So, as long as there is sufficient oil pressure to maintain that incompressible “liquid” hydrodynamic oil wedge, there can be no wear, no matter what the oil’s viscosity is.
In other engine areas where an oil “film” is what is critical, viscosity does not matter there either, because it is the oil’s additive package that contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components, which has nothing to do with viscosity. For all the details, see my “Section 2 – Motor Oil Viscosity Selection”. There you will see the advantages of using the thinnest oil, that will still maintain reasonable “hot” oil pressure.
So again, if your cars is stock as it was built by the factory, there should be no reason why the Honda 0W20 is a problem, since that is what Honda would have used during it’s durability testing. On the other hand, even though 0W30 will not provide all the advantages of the thinner 0W20, for your purposes it should still be fine, since it was given as an optional viscosity by the factory. For your particular type of usage, you would have a tough time telling them apart. So, deciding between those two oils, is not an absolute YES/NO situation. Therefore, use whichever one let’s you sleep better at night.
I will take all this discussion to mean that you will not be sending me the 0W20 oil for testing. So, I will remove the Shipping Instructions.
Take care,
540 RAT
Hello again,
Thank you for the previous response, I believe I am starting to understand that motor oil companies are barely a step above snake-oil salesmen.
I do not completely understand viscosity shear and it’s importance in the scheme of things. I get the fact that basically what we are talking about as an example would be a 30 weight oil that for whatever reason, drops down to acting like a 20w or 15w. Since the viscosity actually has no bearing on the oil’s ability to lubricate a bearing surface – does it matter? The other question is if shear occurs, is it a temporary condition or one that is permanent? One reason for asking this is that I have read a company description that their oil may experience viscosity shear if used in the wrong application.
Take care, Charlie
.
.
=====================================
.
.
Hi again Charlie,
Yes, Oil Companies are sometimes among the absolute worst for false advertising. But, there are some well-known motor oil Brands that are reputable and do offer some excellent products. On the other hand, there are some lesser-known motor oil Brands that are not as reputable and do not offer products that perform well. Yet they hype their motor oils as the best on the market. Buyer beware.
Synthetic multi-viscosity motor oils don’t typically require the use of viscosity improvers/modifiers. But, conventional multi-viscosity motor oils do contain viscosity improvers/modifiers that prevent them from thinning out as much as they normally would as they get hotter. And yes, as those viscosity improvers/modifiers permanently deteriorate from shearing over time with usage, the oil can become thinner when hot, than it was to begin with. But, that is simply NOT a problem as long as the oil is changed at reasonable intervals. Because that will keep you ahead of enough deterioration that could cause a problem.
I have wear tested a number of used synthetic and conventional oils with 5,000 miles (the ideal change interval for normal daily driven street vehicles) on them. I also sent those oils to the Lab for additional testing that I do not perform myself. And the results showed that every one of those oils was STILL within its original viscosity’s specified range.
A motor oil’s viscosity plays no particular role in its wear protection capability. In the case of rod and main bearings, they are kept separated and protected by the incompressible “liquid” hydrodynamic oil wedge that is formed as the oil is pulled into the clearance between the spinning components. All liquid oil is incompressible. So, as long as there is sufficient oil pressure to maintain that incompressible “liquid” hydrodynamic oil wedge, there can be no wear, no matter what the oil’s viscosity is.
In other engine areas where an oil “film” is what is critical, viscosity does not matter there either, because it is the oil’s additive package that contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components, which has nothing to do with viscosity.
But, viscosity is still an important motor oil characteristic. Engine build differences and engine wear differences, result in different clearances. And depending on how robust an oiling system is, different clearances can require different motor oil viscosities for engines to generate acceptable oil pressure. The looser the clearances, the faster a given motor oil viscosity will bleed off through those clearances. Or the thinner the viscosity, the faster the oil will bleed off for given clearances. So, we need sufficient oil pressure to ensure that an adequate oil supply is always present at critical components, to protect an engine from wear and/or damage.
And having various motor oil viscosities available, allows us to select the correct oil for any given engine, no matter what its clearances may be. To cover all the possible variations, I recommend using the thinnest oil that will still maintain reasonable “HOT” oil pressure. And that viscosity requirement can vary from engine to engine, because of differences in clearances.
In addition to that, the viscosity chosen may also make a difference in mechanical engine noise. Sometimes, an engine might have a little mechanical tick or rattle that isn’t really a problem, other than bothering the owner, which can be eliminated by choosing the next thicker viscosity, than oil pressure requirements alone, may have required. So, viscosity choices can give us options to meet the needs of any given engine.
Take care,
540 RAT
Hey , Rat ..
You say that a person should shake the containers of motor oil before pouring into engine . Makes sense that additives would settle at the bottom of bottles . But at the oil change stations they pump oil out of large drums . I don’t see any shaking going on at these places . I guess it would be best to bring your own oil?
.
.
===================================
.
.
Hi Jon,
Yes it would, if you want to get all the benefits from the oil that you paid for. But, if you don’t shake the bottles well, right before you give them the oil, it may not help you. The reason why shaking oil containers isn’t that critical for most cars, is that most cars are just normal daily drivers, and are not subjected to sever loading. So, if the oil in their engines isn’t fully as good as it was originally formulated to be, it won’t generally show up as a problem soon enough for most owners to really notice.
But, for real car guys, especially those who run their cars hard, who want only the best for their “Baby”, then thoroughly shaking the bottles before pouring the oil into your engine is the only way to go. You can see for yourself what I am talking about. If you pour oil out of say a white or other very light colored bottle without shaking it thoroughly, you can see what looks like some sort of sediment at the bottom, if you hold the bottle to the light so that you can see inside at the bottom of the bottle (usually shining light at the bottom and letting the light shine through the plastic works well). That is NOT dirt you are seeing, that is from your additive package.
Not shaking bottles of oil thoroughly, could even be a factor in some flat tappet engines wiping lobes, or not wiping lobes. If you buy the best oil on the market and don’t shake it well before pouring it into your engine, you are not getting everything you paid for. I always shake my bottles thoroughly, and when I do that, I never see anything at the bottom of the bottle after I pour it into an engine. There is the right way to do something, then there are other ways of doing it. I choose and recommend doing this the right way, which means shaking the bottles thoroughly first.
Take care,
540 RAT
Thank you for all your work and all the great info. I don’t know if you are getting paid for your efforts, but I think you should. Would a Youtube channel be a good source of revenue?
.
.
=================================
.
.
Thanks Johnny, I’m glad to hear that you appreciate my Blog. No, I do not get paid one penny for my time and effort. I simply share my test data with others as a courtesy, because there is so much completely wrong information about motor oil out there.
People cannot believe most of what they read on Internet Forums or on Internet motor oil tech articles. They cannot believe anything that cam makers say. They cannot believe most engine builders. They cannot believe most of their buddies. They cannot believe most motor oil Advertising, etc, etc. Because most of what they read and are told, is complete garbage.
But, I back-up everything I post about motor oil with hard Engineering test data FACTS. I have always challenged anyone to PROVE anything I post is wrong. But, no one can PROVE the Physics and Chemistry involved in my testing are wrong. Because Science is the real deal.
The Engineering testing methodology I developed is proprietary, so making a YouTube video is not workable.
Take care,
540 RAT
Could I ask another question before I go? In one of the chat rooms I noticed some guy carping on about the need for a zinc build up on the cams etc. He then goes on to say that your research is flawed because the zinc build up is not the same after 1000, 2000, 3000 miles. My question is, why would he believe that there is a zinc build up? The oil is in a constant state of motion and there detergent in the oil to prevent a build up of junk in the engine. If zinc is going to build up anywhere, wouldn’t it be in the oil filter?
.
.
===============================
.
.
Hi again Johnny,
To be blunt, he is an idiot. He is a perfect example of why I say people cannot believe most of what they read on the Internet. Unqualified people like that guy, make all kinds of ridiculous claims without even knowing what they talking about. What is his education? What are his qualifications? Has he ever done any testing of any kind? Or does he just sit behind his keyboard and throw out nonsense like that?
It’s people like him who perpetuate bad information on the Internet. Yet, he thinks he can pass judgment on my Engineering tests??? My test data exactly matches real world experience (see examples in my Blog). What can he say about that? I challenge him to PROVE the Science of Physics and Chemistry involved in my testing, are wrong. Who do you think will win that battle? No one can disprove Science, because it is the real deal, whether people like it or not.
Zinc does NOT build up on parts like some sort of plating process. Zinc simply does not work that way. It is activated by heat and pressure, and is depleted as it is used. That is why used oil analysis results show less zinc present in used oil, compared to when that oil was brand new.
That guy obviously does not even work on engines, or he would know what he said is garbage. Because you do NOT find a zinc coating all over engine parts. And remember, zinc quantities are given in “parts per million” or ppm. So, there is NOT enough actual zinc in an engine’s oil pan to even coat the parts in the first place. Challenge the guy on all that, if you are able to respond on that chat room.
Zinc quantities do NOT matter, in spite of what countless people have been brainwashed to believe. Because Engineering tests have shown over and over again, that some high zinc oils provide excellent wear protection, and some high zinc oils do NOT. So, looking just at the zinc quantity is totally worthless. And the use of zinc as the primary anti-wear component is outdated technology.
Modern extreme pressure anti-wear components are every bit as good as, and most often BETTER than zinc. That is why modern low zinc oils can perform so well. The FACT is, the only thing that matters when it comes to wear protection, is the psi value a motor oil can generate in my motor oil torture testing. The higher the psi value, the better the wear protection, no matter how much zinc is present.
Thanks for getting in touch,
540 RAT
HI,
Have you ever tested castor oils? There are quite a few of us out here with methanol burning historic racing motorcycle engines that traditionally used castor oils. I’ve not seen anyone claiming to match the protection these types of oils provide …unless I’ve missed something.
Castrol R was the oil of choice years ago but due to lack of availability in my country I now use Morris Oils MLR40.
I’d love to know hoe it performs relative to the others and to see if there is something better I should be using.
Cheers.
Greg
.
.
==============================
.
.
Hi Greg,
I have not tested castor oils. All the oils I have tested are shown on my Wear Protection Ranking List. I would expect today’s top performing motor oils to completely outperform castor oils. But, to know absolutely for sure, I’d have to test castor oil for comparison.
I have never seen nor heard of Morris Oils MLR40, so I’m totally unfamiliar with it. If you’d like to send me a brand new unopened bottle of it, I could test it for you, when I can fit it into my schedule. If you want to do that, let me know. And I can post shipping instructions for a couple of days.
Take care,
540 RAT
Just signed up for your interesting blog. I have read your findings in full and also this page of comments. What I could not find was any reference to what factors, on a race only drag engine, determine the best weight oil to use. I assume clearances and materials factor greatly.
Also, again, race only drag engine, what have you to offer on filter micron requirements?
.
.
=============================
.
.
Hi Jeff,
I mention in numerous places in my Blog, that the recommended oil pressure rule of thumb for racing engines is, “at least 10 psi for every 1,000 rpm”. That automatically takes in account motor oil viscosity, engine clearances and oiling system capacity. I recommend using the thinnest oil that will meet that rule of thumb.
I don’t call for a certain oil filter micron requirement. But, oil filters that filter out extremely fine particles should be avoided for racing engines, because they restrict oil flow more than the more free flowing racing oil filters do. Moroso used to offer and still may, racing oil filters that do not cause excessive oil flow restriction, since they don’t filter out extremely fine particles. So, I suggest you look for a racing oil filter like that, for racing only engines.
Take care,
540 RAT
Hi,
It it possible to test these motorcycle oils (in the very common for motorcycle use 10W40 grade) : Amsoil 10W40 Synthetic Metric Motorcycle Oil, Motul 7100 10W40, Bel-Ray EXP 10W40?
.
.
==============================
.
.
Hi there,
If you want to send me a brand new unopened bottle of each oil you would like to see tested, I could test them when I can fit them into my schedule. If you want to do that, let me know and I can provide shipping instructions.
540 RAT
Hello,
First i would like to say what an incredible blog you have. I lived in a complete darkness before i stumbled upon it on the web.
I have a 1990 Mini ERA Turbo.
The engine in this automobile shares oil with transmission and on top of that is equipped with turbo. I am not a big fan of mineral oils, but everyone i talk to, or anywhere i read say that i should put mineral oil in it with high zinc content. And i think that a better performance can be achieved with a right synthetic. Im not an engineer but i have seen open Mercedes engines at 250k miles with 10k intervals on mobil synthetic, and it looked new inside.
Is there a particular oil you can recommend for my Mini?
Your feedback will be highly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Tony.
.
.
===================================
.
.
Hi Tony,
I’m glad to hear you like my Blog.
The idea that you need to use mineral oil in it with high zinc content, is only an old MYTH perpetuated by people who don’t know the facts, and have been brainwashed to believe that MYTH, simply because it has been repeated over and over for many years. But, repeating WRONG information a million times does NOT make it magically become true.
I’d recommend selecting a highly ranked oil from my Wear Protection Ranking List, no matter how much zinc it has in it. The only thing that matters is the psi value an oil is capable of producing in my Engineering testing. The higher the psi value, the better the wear protection.
It is completely worthless to just look at the zinc content an oil has, because some high zinc oils provide excellent wear protection, while other high zinc oils only provide poor wear protection.
Take care,
540 RAT
For a sbc new build with flat tappet hyd cam,what lube would you use for first few minutes? Oil will be 5-30, seat pressure 100# on springs. How do you feel about grooved lifters or bore groove? Thanks in advance and for all your testing and sharing. Dan
.
.
===============================
.
.
Hi Dan (Michael?),
When you say lube for the first few minutes, I will take it that you mean assembly lube. Everyone who builds engines no doubt has their own favorite assembly lube. Mine is STP Oil Treatment used only as an assembly lube and applied directly to critical component surfaces. But, I do NOT pour a bottle of STP Oil Treatment in with the motor oil.
STP Oil Treatment tenaciously clings to surfaces to provide excellent wear protection. It stays on so well, that you cannot wipe it off even if you try, unless you also use some type of cleaning agent such as brake cleaner or other. Not all assembly lubes cling that well. But, for cylinder walls and rings, I use a 50/50 mix of motor oil and STP Oil Treatment. I’ve used STP Oil Treatment in that manner for many years with 100% success. I also prime each engine well, which is very important, before firing it up for the first time.
It is of course also very important to use an excellent motor oil for first fire as well. I do NOT recommend using so-called Break-In oils because they are formulated to “allow” wear, not to “prevent” wear. And using them with their very poor wear protection capability, can put flat tappet engines in extreme danger of wiping lobes. And that wiped lobe failure happens all too often. See an example of that in my Blog.
Break-In oils are nothing but a scam designed to separate people from their money. The companies that sell Break-In oils, clearly don’t know what they are doing, no matter what their name is. And they apparently don’t test their own products either, so they don’t even know that they are putting engines at risk. No engine built “properly”, has ever required Break-In oil. New engines break-in just fine on their own with no special help at all, even when excellent wear prevention oils are used, such as synthetic Mobil 1 which is used as factory-fill oil in numerous high performance vehicles worldwide.
I have never ever used Break-In oil in my life, and have never had a problem. Factories have never ever used Break-In oil either, and factory engines did not have any problem breaking-in properly in the past, and still do not have any problem breaking-in properly today. And they always come with a warranty as well. See my Tech Article “10. Break-In Oils – Do we Really need them?”, for all the details on that topic.
I recommend using a highly ranked oil from my Wear Protection Ranking List, for break-in AND for after break-in. The same excellent oil can be used for the entire life of an engine. My personal choice these days is 5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability.
I’m OK with grooved lifters or lifter bores, though I’ve never felt the need to use them myself.
Take care,
540 RAT
Hi,
Again, thanks again for writing and maintaining this blog, it is good stuff for sure.
So, the folks on another blog are beating me up about using 5w20, a good 5w20 (Quaker State Ultimate) as recommended by your blog, on the road course. Oil sump temps on the track will go up to about 270-280F and track sessions are 20-30 minutes. Engine RPMs stay above 4K pretty much all the time. “They” are telling me that I should be running 5w50. The manufacturer recommends 5w20 (2016 Ford 5 liter v-8) and does not recommend an alternative weight oil. BUT in earlier versions of this same engine, Frod recommended 5w50 for track use. That recommendation is no long in the manual.
I do not have an oil pressure gauge on my car so I cannot tell you what my oil pressure is like when it is this hot.
Am I all wet in using a 5w20 on the track?
.
.
==============================
.
.
Hi Jim, it’s good to hear from you.
Thanks for the kind words, I appreciate that.
First of all, you are not contacting me to say that you blew up your engine at the track. So, right there we know you are doing fine with running QSUD 5W20. And the oil temps you are seeing at the track are a bit hot, but they are not over the top for racing conditions. So, your car is doing a reasonable job of keeping the oil temps under control. But, if the temps get much hotter, I would consider looking into adding an oil cooler if you don’t already have one, or improving the oil cooler setup, if you do have one already.
As for you getting beat up, “They” do NOT know what they are talking about. “They” are among those unqualified people who perpetuate bad information about motor oil on the Internet. Uninformed people have for years and years just “assumed” that thicker oil provided better wear protection, with no data what so ever, to back that up.
My Engineering tests on motor oil have proven over and over again, that viscosity plays no particular role in a motor oil’s wear protection capability. Wear protection capability is determined by the oil’s additive package which contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components.
The worst thing you could do is run 5W50, because that would reduce oil flow, reduce lubrication, reduce oil cooling of critical components, drive up bearing temps, increase sump temps, form more air bubbles/foam in the oil, and decrease HP to the ground.
The Ford guys may have read my Blog, and then decided they were wrong about calling for 5W50 at the track, and then removed it from the manual. I am somewhat familiar with Ford’s engine durability testing, and even the road racing you do, does not reach the level of torture that Ford puts their engines through. So, if Ford calls for 5W20 in your engine, which it was designed for, they know for a FACT, that your engine will be just fine with it, no matter how you run it.
See my “SECTION 2 – MOTOR OIL VISCOSITY SELECTION”, for all the benefits of running thinner oil.
I see no reason for you to change the viscosity you are using now. You have been doing just fine with it, so ignore those who are beating you up about it. Because you are the one who is doing the right thing, NOT them. People like them always think that gang mentality, nastiness and emotional outbursts will determine what is correct, even if they have absolutely no technical data to back up what they claim. But, Engineering and Science do NOT work that way. Engineering test data FACTS, PROVE what is correct, even if it goes against the MYTHS that people have been brainwashed to believe.
If push came to shove, and you felt you just had to use a thicker oil in order to sleep better at night, then you could switch to QSUD 5W30. But, I would caution you to NOT go any thicker than that.
Take care,
540 RAT
Thanks for your timely response and good info!
On another note, I’m sure you’re tiring of blog arguments, but in case you’re not, here is a very active post that could use your expertise!!
http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1901721#post1901721
Best,
Jim
.
.
====================================
.
.
Hi again Jim,
You are right, I am not interested in Forum arguments about motor oil. Been there, done that. In those situations, everyone argues (as you know, those discussions are NOT simply Q & A) endlessly until most get tired and move on to another thread. Everyone there thinks they are an expert (even though they have zero qualifications), just because they have read some lame Internet articles about motor oil, which they don’t even understand are mostly garbage.
And those know it all people always gang up and attack the few who dare to question their unproven claims. And after all that time and agony, no one is ever convinced of anything, no matter how much data and proof is provided. People still end up right where they started. The level of stupidity you find on Forum discussions about motor oil is just mind boggling. So, the whole thing is absolutely a total waste of time.
That is one of the reasons why I started this Blog in the first place. We don’t have arguments here. People can read my FACTUAL Engineering test data, and then ask questions if they want to. Then I answer their questions. That’s it. It is a much more pleasant and educational environment here.
So, feel free to ask any questions that may come up after reading my Blog, or any questions that come up from Forum discussions.
Take care,
540 RAT
Hello again.
When are you going to do a blog like that on gear oils?
I have a question.
I have a Mercedes 2.3-16 with manual transmission. Every more or less reputable mechanic/specialist with whom i talk to are saying that i should only use factory gear oil in tranny and rear LSD diff, because apparently they were build to run only OEM oil back in the day and will not work/grind gears when using modern synthetic oils.
Thank you.
Tony.
.
.
=======================================
.
.
Hi Tony,
I will not be doing a Blog on gear oils. Very few car guys show much interest in gear oil. But, almost all car guys are interested in motor oil.
The only problem I am aware of from putting modern synthetic gear oil in older car trannies and conventional diffs, and have experienced it myself, is that the synthetic gear oil can cause leaks that did not exist with conventional gear oil.
Sometimes you can just change back to conventional gear oil and the leaks will stop. But, other times, you have to replace seals that are leaking. As for limited slip diffs, you should follow factory recommendations on what gear oil to use, to avoid the possibility of causing clutch pack slippage.
There is no real pressing need to put modern synthetic gear oil in older daily driver type street vehicle trannies and diffs. So, to avoid any potential problems, I suggest you just use the gear oil recommended by the factory.
Take care,
540 RAT
Hello 540 Rat. You are amazing! The work you have done has made things very clear regarding motor Oils. I’ve always liked Valvoline High Mileage btw. The question I have is this. For a 2001 Silverado 2500 HD with 8.1 which oil would you use? I’m on the fence between Pennzoil Ultra Platinum 5w30, Valvoline High Mileage 5W30 and Quaker State Ultimate Durability. My first Oil change I put in the Pennzoil Ultra. I’m thinking of using a blend of 60/40 Ultra and Valvoline with top offs if needed with the less expensive Ultimate durability for Summers and 60/40 Valvoline/Pennzoil Ultra during Summers. These are the only 3 oils I will consider after reading your blog. I like the Cleaning ability of the Ultra and the Nat Gas Aspect but the Film strength of the Valvoline. Please Advise. THANKS!!!
.
.
=============================
.
.
Hi Johnny, thanks for the kind words.
Here’s how those 3 oils compare together:
5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability, API SN, GM dexos 1 approved, synthetic (gold bottle) = 113,377 psi
5W30 Pennzoil “Ultra” Platinum, Pure Plus Technology, made from pure natural gas, API SN, GM dexos 1 approved = 99,039 psi
5W30 Valvoline MaxLife High Mileage, API SN, GM dexos 1 approved, synthetic blend (red bottle) = 92,639 psi
For me, the clear choice is 5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability, which I use myself. I do NOT recommend mixing oils, because that is not ideal. I would only do that if you are on the road, and need to add oil without the oil you are using being available. So, I suggest you make a choice of just ONE of those oils that you feel best about for your own needs, and use ONLY that oil.
Take care,
540 RAT